ILNews

Opinions June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Joseph E. Corcoran v. Bill Wilson, superintendent
07-2093, 07-2182
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Allen Sharp.
Civil. Reinstates and incorporates by reference the earlier opinion in Corcoran v. Buss to the extent that it reversed the District Court’s judgment granting habeas relief on the basis of the claimed Sixth Amendment violation; and affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that the Indiana courts did not mishandle the issue of his competence to waive post-conviction remedies. Remands to District Court to permit it to address Corcoran’s remaining grounds for habeas relief.

Spurlino Materials LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, et al.
Nos. 10-2875, 10-3049
Petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Civil. Grants the National Labor Relations Board’s application for enforcement of its order against cross-petitioner Spurlino Materials. The NLRB adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge to find Spurlino engaged in a variety of unfair labor practices and imposed remedial measures. Substantial evidence supports the board’s holding. Denies Spurlino’s cross-petition for review.

Indiana Supreme Court
J.M. v. M.A., et al.
20S04-1012-CV-676
Civil. Reverses trial court decision to set aside the paternity affidavit and remands to give J.M. the opportunity, as agreed to at oral argument, to challenge the paternity affidavit in the manner outlined in Indiana Code.

Elmer D. Baker v. State of Indiana
17S04-1009-CR-500
Criminal. Adopts the reasoning of the California Supreme Court and holds that the state may in its discretion designate a specific act or acts on which it relies to prove a particular charge. If the state decides not to so designate, then the jurors should be instructed that in order to convict the defendant, they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all of the acts described by the victim and included within the time period charged. Finds Baker did not demonstrate that the instruction error in his case so prejudiced him that he was denied a fair trial.

Lamar M. Crawford v. State of Indiana
49S05-1106-CR-370
Criminal. Affirms denial of two of Crawford’s requests for certain footage relating to his murder investigation for an in camera review. Crawford’s requests did not pass the first step of the three-step test used to determine the discoverability of information in criminal cases.

Crisis Connection, Inc. v. Ronald K. Fromme
19S05-1012-CR-678
Criminal. Reverses trial court order that Crisis Connection turn over counseling records for in camera review before turning them over to Fromme. The records are protected by the victim advocate privilege and Fromme does not have a constitutional right to an in camera review of Crisis Connection’s records. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mickey Cundiff v. State of Indiana
31A05-1008-CR-607
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Cundiff was not entitled to a speedy trial pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) despite his incarceration on an unrelated cause. A defendant must be incarcerated on the pending charges to be entitled to the benefits of the 70-day speedy trial rule.

Save Our School: Elmhurst High School v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, et al.
02A04-1012-PL-746
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of motion to dismiss Save Our School’s complaint for declaratory judgment against Fort Wayne Community Schools seeking to force Elmhurst High School to remain open. FWCS's decision to close Elmhurst is not an action subject to judicial review as potentially violating the Indiana Constitution.

Elliott McKinley Montgomery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1012-CR-616
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder in the perpetration of robbery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.H. and J.H.; Jo.H. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
89A04-1011-JT-706
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

James Hatala v. Sally Hatala (NFP)
64A03-1011-DR-555
Domestic relation. Affirms in part the dissolution decree and reverses in part. Remands to revalue the proceeds from the condemnation settlements at zero, to recalculate its division of the parties’ marital assets, to determine what effect, if any, this recalculation has on the alleged intended 50-50 division of the marital estate, to recalculate what amount of Sally Hatala’s attorney fees, if any, James Hatala should pay, and to amend the divorce decree accordingly.

Ryan T. McMullen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1009-CR-1165
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony possession of cocaine and Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Jack Edwards, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A05-1006-CR-395
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

Robert M. Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1010-CR-654
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

SB Hospitality, LLC, et al. v. R.S. Elliott Specialty Supply, Inc. (NFP)
71A05-1008-PL-702
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of SB Hospitality and Gita Patel’s motion to withdraw admissions and the grant of summary judgment for R.S. Elliott Specialty Supply.

KJE, LLC v. RAC Holdings, Inc., and Rex Carroll (NFP)
02A03-1102-PL-52
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Rex Carroll and RAC Holdings on the issue of whether RAC breached a franchise agreement.

Robert L. Frank, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1012-CR-801
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class D felony sexual battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Z.E., et al.; S.E. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
79A04-1101-JT-27
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Paternity of T.F.-W.; D.F. v. J.W. (NFP)
49A02-1009-JP-976
Juvenile. Affirms grant of legal custody of T.F.-W. to child’s biological father.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

  5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.

ADVERTISEMENT